Bears 19, Lions 14. I think the point where everyone is getting tripped up over this Calvin Johnson touchdown debacle is that the referees applied a rule that written for catches made on the sideline. I’m in favor for more rigid criteria when a guy is diving out of bounds and trying to catch a ball when his body is parallel with the earth. But Megatron went straight up for a ball and managed to get two feet and the left side of his ass inbounds before idly leaving the game ball in the end zone. That’s a catch, right?

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that “if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.” –via NBC Chicago.

I’ve watched the damn video on this about 15 times, and I still can’t say definitively that it looked like a catch (why does Johnson decide to even put that ball on the ground at all?) It wasn’t the call that killed the touchdown so much as Calvin Johnson’s understanding of the rule. Granted, it’s a stupid rule, but all he had to do was hang onto the the ball. I’d say it was unfortunate, but all that came out of it was another Detroit Lions loss. Those come around like, once a week or so. Video is after the jump. Watch it and then tell me I’m crazy.

Join The Discussion

And this marks the 67th time that I’ve asked myself: “Shaun Hill is white?”

09.13.10 at 10:36 am

The Sports Machine

They could probably get rid of half the rule book, and I’d be a happier NFL fan.

09.13.10 at 10:40 am

Slothrop

Have to agree with Punte. Also, it was not a fumble.

/suck it Raiders

09.13.10 at 10:45 am

Upstate Underdog

I thought it looked like a catch and should have been a TD.

The important thing is if you bet the Lions at +6 you still won your bet. However, I’m thinking there was a lot of pissed off fantasy football players with Calvin Johnson in their line up yesterday.

09.13.10 at 11:12 am

Enrico Pallazzo

When in doubt, every call should go against Jay Cutler’s team. That is the only rule needed in the rulebook.

09.13.10 at 11:50 am

notyoutoo!

It’s pretty clear he has control with both hands when two feet come down….that is a catch. he then switches to one hand, thinking he is close to out of bounds (watch him turn his head back). It was a catch before he even flopped. the rule is negated. Hey! wasnt that ref like 5 yards away, staring directly at the play signalling a TD? Even if the rule was properly applied; it is hardly enough to overturn.

I hate Detroit.

09.13.10 at 12:52 pm

Lothar of the Hill People

Lousy rule. And I bleed navy & orange. The ruling was right, but the rule is stupid. Two feet + possession = catch. But even though I want Lovie gone, I’m happy to take this W.

09.13.10 at 1:10 pm

Garipeto

“Process of the catch” is going to take over for “indisputable visual evidence” as most overused phrase in the NFL.

09.13.10 at 1:35 pm

Jmac

I’m thinking if he doesn’t let go of the ball at the end, they call it a catch.

Confusing rule as that looked like a catch to me.

09.13.10 at 2:08 pm

jpablos

You people don’t understand the rule or why it was created. There used to be a lot of interpretation in whether something was a catch or not. You could have a play reviewed and have three different refs with three different interpretations of the play. One might think, “that was a catch and then he was down by contact.” Another could see the same play and think, “that was a catch and then a fumble,” and a third might see it and say “that was an incomplete pass”. At the time all three would have been correct. As the possession rule was completely up to interpretation.

So, this rule was created. Now, there isn’t any interpretation involved. If you are making a catch and going to the ground then you hold onto the ball until the play is whistled dead.

The rule wasn’t created for when people went out of bounds on a catch. It was created because there was way too much interpretation on what was a catch and what wasn’t.

If Calvin Johnson stayed on his feet, it was a touchdown. If Calvin Johnson didn’t have the ball pop out of his hand when he braced himself for the fall with the football hand then it was a touchdown.

The ruling is no different than if he had jumped into the air, caught the ball, then fell on his back and had the ball pop out when he hit the ground. This rule has been used probably every single game since the rule was created. This situation is no different than any of those other situations.

09.13.10 at 2:17 pm

jpablos

There was also similar problems with interpretation related to when a player DIDN’T go to the ground in the process of making a catch.

You have all seen it if you watch football. A player makes a catch and turns up field only to have a DB punch the ball out. It looks like a fumble, but it is ruled an incomplete pass because the player didn’t make a “football move” after catching the ball. That rule was similarly created to remove interpretation on what is a complete catch and a fumble and what is an incomplete catch. “Football move” sounds like it is ill-defined and confusing, but it is simply defined and the rule helps to remove any interpretation from the rulings.

The NFL doesn’t want a team to lose a game because a ref interpreted a rule one way when another ref could have interpreted the rule a different way and also been correct. It shouldn’t be the refs job to decide the outcome of the game. They should just be there to tell people definitively what happened.

Ok jpablos, or should i call you Crazy Bears Fan. No doubt he should have just held on to the ball and then there would have been no issues, but in his excitement (having just won the game) he put the ball on the ground, after having both feet, hands, knee and butt hit the ground. Even Bear fans are saying it should have been a catch….It is a stupid rule that needs to be modified as to allow something like this not to happen.

09.13.10 at 2:42 pm

jpablos

People that don’t understand the rule and why it was created are calling it a catch. This rule exists for a very good reason.

09.13.10 at 3:21 pm

i_pee_nightly

Oh well, i guess you really proved your point with the last statement…dumbass.

My question is, what is the real purpose of this rule? Why does the “process of the catch” take so long? If a receiver catches a ball and has possession with two feet in bounds, shouldn’t the play be dead at that point? Unless officials mistakenly extended that catch process too far in this case, NFL rules say it is not.

09.13.10 at 3:35 pm

notyoutoo!

So, i guess, according to pablo…the player must come to an utter and complete freeze, on a molecular level in the space time continuum…whether or not a ref call it a TD or not, because the rule displaces any need for interpretation; though, the officials had to review the play to apply a new interpretation overriding the first application by the called TD..PARADOX.

09.13.10 at 4:51 pm

jpablos

On the field the play was called incomplete. One ref called it a touchdown, and the other ref who was also about 10 feet away ran over and ruled it incomplete. Then it was reviewed by a third ref who called it incomplete. The ref who initially called it a TD was incorrect. But that is why they have multiple refs, a head ref, and review, to get the call right.

It is pretty simple, if you want the catch to be complete you don’t drop the ball while going to the ground. The ball hit the ground and popped out, it is incomplete.

I posted above why the rule is the way it is.

It is the same making a catch in the end zone as it is anywhere else. You have to hold onto the ball and complete the catch for it to be a catch. Whether you are in the end zone or not is irrelevant.

People get confused because a runner has a TD as soon as they cross the plane of the end zone, whether he drops the ball or not. The difference is the runner has previously established possession prior to crossing the plane of the end zone. A receiver making a catch in the end zone just has to establish possession for it to be ruled a touchdown. In the case of Calvin Johnson, he never established possession because he dropped the ball while going to the ground.

Similarly, if a runner is about to cross the end zone and he fumbles the ball just before crossing the plane of the end zone, then while picking up the ball in the end zone is hit and the ball goes flying out of the back of the end zone, it would be ruled a touchback. Because the runner lost possession of the ball prior to crossing the plane of the end zone and never regained possession of the ball before the ball exited the back of the end zone.

09.13.10 at 5:04 pm

TheRainInSpain

Pablos you could not be more wrong. He had possession, two feet, his butt, and a knee to boot. The rule is stupid and not meant for a catch where the WR goes up to catch. I made a post earlier that is still waiting for moderation approval. In last years SB the Saints successfully challenged a two point conversion that in many ways looked the same, the receiver left the ball on the turf, but it was ruled good. Just admit that you are a Bears fan and move on!

09.13.10 at 5:07 pm

jpablos

“Oh well, i guess you really proved your point with the last statement…dumbass.

My question is, what is the real purpose of this rule? Why does the “process of the catch” take so long? If a receiver catches a ball and has possession with two feet in bounds, shouldn’t the play be dead at that point? Unless officials mistakenly extended that catch process too far in this case, NFL rules say it is not.” -i_pee_nightly

That is a good question. The reason it is not ruled a catch right away is because of unintended consequences in another part of the game. If the player is making the catch in the field and has two feet down and is hit right as he makes the catch causing the ball to pop out, that would have to be ruled a fumble in that case. The end result would be 10+ fumbles a game from receivers. As a result you would see much less passing and the game would become more run centric. However, people like passing offenses. The game became much more successful after implementing rules that protected QBs and WRs, and set up the pass to be the dominant facet of offense.

If you just changed the rule in the end zone so having 2 feet down and control of the ball counts as possession and as a result a touchdown you have two different sets of rules determining what is a catch in two different areas of the field. That would just create confusion and controversy.

This rule has been in effect almost a decade and this is the first huge controversy it has caused. However, everyone agrees on one thing, as per the rule it was not a catch. Many people think, it should have been a catch and the rule is wrong, however, everyone agrees that according to the rules it is not a catch. This is the better of two evils. The NFL and especially the NFL Officiating crews would rather have people pissed at a rule than pissed because a specific official interpreted a catch as a catch when everyone else thinks it wasn’t a catch and the rules were ambiguous so both parties were correct.

09.13.10 at 5:34 pm

TheRainInSpain

People sucking the NFL teat agree that it was not a catch. Many people and announcers that watched the game live were dismayed that it was not a touchdown. This rule was written for people that go horizontal on the sidelines not receivers that go vertical for a catch. Two feet and possession of football equals a TD. You sir, are the dumbass, Google 2010 SB two point conversion and tell me how it was any different.

09.13.10 at 7:04 pm

jpablos

The call in the Super Bowl was incorrect. Officials make mistakes, it happens. The rule had extra emphasis put on it this offseason (probably as a result of the play in the SB).

Even the coach of the Detroit Lions thinks they got the call right this time.

The rule wasn’t made for people diving at the sidelines it was made to remove ambiguity on what is a catch and what isn’t. There is a similar rule for making a catch without going to the ground.

It is just like the removal of the “force out” rule. The NFL is trying to remove ambiguity in the rules. They don’t want to force refs to make judgment calls on the field.

09.13.10 at 8:06 pm

TheRainInSpain

What do you expect Schwartz to say? He does not have the money of Mark Cuban to afford the fine.

Just admit you are a Bears fan, and this misapplied rule helped you win a game that you should have won handily. You should be embarrassed that your team was not dominating this game. Detroit sucks, and so do the Bears.

09.13.10 at 9:27 pm

i_pee_nightly

No one will agree with you, because you aren’t getting what people are really saying. No one is debating that this rule wasn’t followed, everyone is saying that the rule is flawed….if he bobbled the ball, or somehow lost control of it while making the catch then we wouldn’t be having this discussion, but he didnt. The vast majority of fans/commentators/etc thought that it should have been a TD (regardless of what is in the rulebook) and i guarantee this rule will be modified next year. And no, he wont admit he is a Bears fan…or works for the NFL.

09.13.10 at 11:56 pm

jpablos

I understand that is the argument pee_nightly and that is why I have been trying to explain why the NFL has the rule the way it is. The rule WAS NOT misapplied. It was created just for this situation.

Both the former head of officiating,Mike Pereira, and current head of officiating, Carl Johnson, have said that the rule was perfectly applied. Carl Johnson even went on to say that he was proud of the officials for getting the ruling correct on the field.

I can guarantee you this rule does not get modified for next season. The owners and VP of Officiating reviewed it this offseason because of the call in the Super Bowl. The end result was the rule not being changed at all, and when the officials came back in for pre-season training they emphasized the rule. They have also been emphasizing the rule in pre-season media conferences so the announcers would understand the rule (which clearly the NFL didn’t do a good enough job because the announcers were confused by the ruling).

The rule as it stands is part of a bevy of changes the current and former VP of officiating and the league commissioner have been making to remove ambiguity. Now that fans know and understand the rule there shouldn’t be many problems with it in the future.

Whether I am a Bears fan or in a contract with the NFL is irrelevant. The rule exists for a good reason, and the rule was followed and applied perfectly.

09.14.10 at 12:05 am

The Sports Machine

Jesus H. Christ, I came here for some titties and some dick jokes, not a fucking “War and Peace”-sized post on the NFL rulebook.

09.14.10 at 1:24 am

Garipeto

Yeah, because things like “process of the catch” and “football move” really take out the ambiguity in the rules and remove the judgement calls from the refs.. hah

The whole process of the catch crap is just as open to interpretation as deciding if someone establishes possession. And for the record- I’m a huge Bears fan. Megatron caught the football, clearly.

09.15.10 at 11:55 pm

Zoltan9

It was the wrong call even if you go by the actual rule:

“he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground” – He clearly had control after he touched the ground.

“If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete” He never lost control of the ball after touching the ground.

“If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.” – These last two sections were put in place for cases where the receiver hits the ground and the ball is jarred loose. If he is able to regain control of the ball before it hits the ground, it is complete and if not, incomplete. Since he never lost control of the ball while hitting the ground these items are moot.

Where does it say that you must retain control of the ball while hitting the ground for 3 seconds and not 1, for instance?